Your Religion or Spirituality

I actually watched something about how time travel was possible. It was very interesting. It wasn't something like you could go back to anytime. It was more of a you could go back to when the machine first started running.

 

Add to? The average High School in a large city is a prison unto themselves, everything for drug dogs to cameras to police on duty at all times, as well as the shake downs..err.."random searches".

I can think of no more a Statist place then a US High School, in my view it is because any attempt at morality has long since been abandoned, and I do not mean the cloying "say no to drugs" stuff, I mean basic respect for one another.

And "Collective"? Nay Bro Pagan, I've set foot in a church 5 times maybe 6, those were for funerals and baptisms, i'm not a big on Religion...now there is a conundrum..

 

Amen to that, brother padre.

I was just messin' with ya, bro.

 

Time is a dimension, bro.

I don't know if time travel is possible or not but it is thought to be highly improbable but it would be cool though

 

the fourth dimension in physics.
The last theory I heard about it was the ability to travel through the multiverse.....

 

My favorite theory on time travel is a highly complex one:

If time travel existed we would never know about...ever. Assuming that the only people who would have access to such a device would be of the highest levels of government, we (the public) would not be privy to this.

Therefore, any "Time Travel" or events changed by those traveling through time would affect us in a non-concious way. This means that past historical events may have already been changed without our knowledge. The person(s) who contolled such a device could manipulate the Time-Space continuum in such a way that deprives us of knowing that any changes took place at all.

So I guess speculation on time-travel is a moot point

 

I dont believe time travel is possible whatsoever.

I dont see time as a 'thing'....

Time is always moving forward...even when time might seem to slow down it is still moving forward....

So although time may be calculated its not something that you can think of as say a VHS tape you can just rewind...

 

Actually, your personal views notwithstanding, time is an integral part of spacetime. Which means that if you could step outside time and space, our universe would look like a long, stretched-out structure with every moment in history from its beginning to its end all part of its existence. Time wouldn't exist without space and vice versa.

 

If you want to read a fun book on time travel, I recommend "How to build a time machine" by theoretical physicist, Paul Davies. The book explores the idea in simple, humorous terms and does it in less than 150 pages.

One of my favorite quotes in the chapter "How to visit the future" is:

Davies, Paul (2002). How to Build a Time Machine. Penguin Books Ltd. ISBN 0-14-100534-3.

 

Indeed! We are that deep.

 

Well a couple days off and I have no hope of catching up.

It seems the battle lines are drawn, defenses shored up, the line has not budged, and the battle rages on with mortars taking a occasional random victim to the grave. Just as I left it.

Cause we all know that if this battle ever had a winner - the known universe would implode on itself.

 

Jihad!

 

And here is one of the Biblical tidbits that hang in the air like Fieldler go route pass, "I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending" I.E. the idea that first day of Creation had no time involved within it...

 

There is a topic to this thread?

Who knew?

 

No need for jihad!, that enemy is easily defeated by putting Paul Diano back at lead vocals...

His version of Wraithchild was "okay" as was "Murders in the Rue Morgue" but other then that, he could stop a band in it's tracks....

 

However it would also speak against both the concept of free will and the miraculous intervention of God in activities in our universe. If everything that ever happened exists at once, then every decision was made from the picosecond the universe came into existence, and if God is outside our spacetime, how would He interact with it?

 

He already would have interacted with it, and would that space time be the same no matter what, or could their be variations based on interactions with that time?

Take door "Y" and "Z" happens, take "D" and "C" happens, and the concept of time would be if viewed from the outside, "A day is as a thousand years" the mistake is that "day" is allegorical, not literal, or perhaps, metaphorical.

Now the mechanism of interaction could be built into that time line anyway, with Door A or B providing the interaction?

Ehh..Beer me Koshi

 

the old Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Paradox in where you prove that does not exist by proving he does exist

 

First of all, I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. I got married and was on my honeymoon.

I think in a scientific manner. Because of that, I do know there is no God. I can say that, because there is not one shred of evidence to say otherwise. None. In fact, there's more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, than God. In fact, saying there is a God is exactly like saying aliens populated the Earth. You, on the other hand, are the one that must believe, that when it comes to aliens populating the Earth, it may or may not be fact, and we can't say one way or another.

I agree, there is belief and there is fact. But believers, are the ones who have trouble separating the two. Where you and many others confuse the argument, is claiming that anything is possible, therefore, things can't be proved or disproved. Anyone saying I can't say that there is no God as a fact, then should also say I can't claim a fish will not spontaneously grow from the top of my head. Since it has never happened before, than I suspect you'd say it is possible, because we just don't know.

The good part though, is that if significant evidence ever came to light supporting the existence of God, then I'd rethink my position. But until that day comes, there is no God...or Tooth Fairy for that matter.

 

That depends on what you believe god is though. If you believe god is some guy on a cloud you may have a point. If you believe that god is THE energy field then your arguement breaks down as there is ample proof out there that there is something. Also the fact with these laws that there is decent amount of proof of an intelligent design (Not in the creationist sense of poof there it is).

Saying there is no Zues, yes, saying there is no Christian God yes, you do have a point. However once you say there is no God period, then you are in the area of belief and not fact.

Congrats on your honeymoon.

 

Thanks! It was in Hawaii. I must say, that was the closest thing to religious experience I ever had!!!

Ok, what is this "proof" of the the energy field God? We know there are fields of energies how does that prove its God? We know there are trees, some may believe trees are gods, but that don't make it so.

 

That all depends on what you believe god is. For you to have a belief that there is no God, first you need to have a belief of what God is.

So I guess my question to you is, what is your definition of God?

 

A cognizant, omnipotent power, whether it be a being or an intelligent shade of the color blue that can only be seen when refracted through a prism.

 

A fan of the guide is see.

I guess that is why I do not believe Athiests actually exist since they need to have a belief in a God for them to believe that God does not exist.

 

I was raised Methodist but lean more towards atheist now

 

What???

 

Oh yeah. Mostly just the first one though.

Not to be insulting, but that is gibberish. Just because I give you a definition of God, does not mean I have a belief in one. I can give you a definition of Santa Claus, that does not in any way, mean I believe in him to not believe in him.

However, you skirted the question from before, which is what is this evidence of God-like energy?

 

I use the fact there are 22 laws of the universe that if one of those numbers is off by .0000000000000000000001 then the entire universe falls apart. You can look at it as a random chance if that is what you want to believe. You can look at it as proof of there is a god.

Not really because Santa Claus is something that is definable. God by its very nature is something that is not definable.

You talk scientifically however it is impossible to prove scientifically that "THERE IS NO GOD". At least at this point in our scientific world. There is no equation that proves the non-existance of God, there isn't a study that has been made. There isn't anything scientifically that proves that there is no thing that is an intelligence behind the scenes if you will. To use science as a proof to the fact that there is no god is frankly a cop out. There isn't a study that proves that there is no afterlife.

There is plenty of scientific data that exists that there isn't a man in the north pole who gives presents to kids everywhere. There is enough scientific data to say that fish will not jump out of our heads. There is enough scientific data that proves all those things you say aren't true. There is NONE that says, "There IS no GOD".

 

You gave quotes from astrophysicists. They have nothing to do with evolution. Two different realms of science. Would you let a nuclear physicist diagnose a medical condition you might have? Hopefully not.

This to me is one of the main problems with your side of the argument. Scientists are not a collective. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with the origin of man. They are two separate problems that need answering. Sure there is no man without the universe, but the link begins and ends there.

Its interesting, that just by reading the quotes you presented, you do not see the irony of your argument. Neither of the scientists you cite has evidence of God, but they have enough wonder, that the only explanation they can think of is God. Which throughout history, has been the default answer for explaining things that can't be explained. From why the Nile floods its banks to why crops grow. The important thing to remember, is not having answers to every question, is not evidence of God. Especially in the scientific sense of evidence.

I would encourage you in the future, to keep your arguments separate. You have no case in disproving evolution in favor of God, but you may still have a case in disproving the Big Bang in favor of God. When it comes to evolution, there is more verifiable evidence and fact, (fossils, DNA, etc.) then there is for gravity. You do believe in gravity don't you?

 

That is not proof. That is a hypothesis. It is important to understand the difference.

The important thing to see here is, is God not definable now, or not definable ever?

This is were you are wrong. It is scientifically possible to explain that there is no God. Science works off of verifiable evidence. There is no evidence of God. In fact, you said yourself that God is undefinable. That means there is no evidence of him/her/it. There is NONE that says, "There IS a GOD." And since there is no evidence one way or another, science tells us that the concept of God, exists only in our minds as an abstract. But to stoop so hard for the existence of God when there is no evidence of one, even though people have looked since the concept of God first appeared in their heads, is a bit extreme. Science is not a court of law. In science, it doesn't exist, until there is evidence of it.

Again, your leaving open the door that says literally anything is possible. By you're way of thinking, I can make up whatever my imagination comes up with, and no one, anywhere can ever say its impossible. That's why science is so important. It defines the limitations, without which there would be philosophical anarchy. Yet, science is still fluid enough to change if new evidence presents itself.

 

And if the nuclear physicist is talking about chemical reactions that might take place in the body you would not completely dismiss it either. Point is in modern times science all sciences have become almost a mesh of one another.

Origin of species and the origin of the universe all compound one large theory which talks about our existence how are they not related? So scientist that study space looking for chemical compounds that can produce life see no link?

 

Science works on an idea that there is something that can be proven with the scientific method or through observation. There is no study that proves God does not exist as a fact. There is no observation that proves there is no God as a fact.

Science does not work with the idea that something doesn't exist until it is proven. In science it is a theory until it is proven. In science it is impossible to prove something does not exist as a fact. The only thing science can prove is that there is a small probability that something does not exist. Science does not prove that jumping off a 15 story building can cause death. Science proves that there is a high probability that jumping off a 15 story building can cause death.

Science does not define limitations. Science tries to describe what is around us. The idea that Science is there or there would be philosophical anarcy is a faith like idea on its own.

Also my way of thinking as you put it, is how Einstien discovered the theory of relativity, with his imagining the impossible.

 

I know it is a hypothesis. It is the scientific community's job to be skeptical, however to say it is impossible, is when science ***** up.

 

To sum up.

Being skeptical that there is a god = science

Saying god does not exist and that is a fact = belief

 

Yes and no. Science has broken it up into different disciplines, as they learn more there will be/is overlap, that is for sure. But its still like asking a guy who raises cows, how to grill the best steak, and then based on his answer, proclaim that you have the single best way to grill a steak.

The context of this discussion is pretty important to what I said as well. We were all talking really, about the evolution vs. creation of man, specifically. Not necessarily about all life on earth. If a person choses to not agree with the evolution of man, they will never agree with the scientific explanations of the creation and workings of the universe. Which is why I made the distinction in the post you quoted. In broader, rational terms, when speaking to like minded people, you are right.

 

Observation, is evidence. There is no observation of God (literally, mathematically, otherwise). Therefore, there is no God.

Actually, it is first a hypothesis. Then it is researched. Then based on the observable evidence, it may become a theory. Then, if it can be verified and proven true completely, then it becomes a law. Science however does prove, if you jump off that building, you will fall down. It says that with 100% accuracy. You're way of thinking, says, maybe once, the guy will go up.

It absolutely does define the limitations of what is possible. If it didn't gravity wouldn't be a law, for example. Well, considering the belief that literally anything is possible, regardless if there is evidence for it to happen or not, is in fact, philosophical anarchy by its very definition, then explain how that isn't true.

No. You may have a case for him coming up with the hypothesis, but not the research involved with proving it a scientific theory. In fact, you'll find, that Einstein, didn't "like" some of the things his research implied and rejected it, even though it was accurate.

No its not. It is the scientific communities job to not be skeptical. It is there job to be objective. But if there is a hypothesis, that has 0 observational evidence, then it is valid, scientifically, to say that hypothesis is wrong.

Actually, scientifically speaking, it is the other way around.